Prisoner votes ruling could lead to new clash between judges and MPs

Britain is heading for a constitutional clash between the judiciary and
Parliament after the Supreme Court rejected the latest legal challenge on
prisoners’ right to vote, an MP has warned.

By David Barrett, and Steven Swinford

4:00PM BST 16 Oct 2013

The country’s highest court threw out a bid by two convicted murderers who were attempting to force the Government to give them the vote while in jail.

David Cameron, the Prime Minister, called the court’s decision a “great victory for common sense” - but the detail of the ruling exposed how judges believe they should have the final say on prisoners’ voting rather than MPs.

Baroness Hale, the Supreme Court’s deputy president, said in her judgment it “cannot be right” that politicians should be the final arbiters of whether criminals have the vote because they may have a “vested interest” in ensuring prisoners remained disenfranchised.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2005 that a blanket ban was illegal, and Parliament is due to decide soon on options the government has drawn up to give some serving criminals the right to take part in elections.

MPs are expected to reject any changes to the law, opening up the way for a future conflict with the judicary.

Dominic Raab, a Conservative backbencher, said: “The Supreme Court may have dismissed the claims for now, but it made clear its view that we have to slavishly follow the Strasbourg court and give prisoners the vote soon.

“It sets the stage for a constitutional clash with elected law-makers in Parliament - with the basic principle of democratic accountability to the British people at stake.”

The new case was brought by convicted killers Peter Chester and George McGeoch.

Chester, who is in his 50s, is serving life for raping and strangling his seven year-old niece Donna Marie Gillbanks in Blackpool in 1977.

The killer is detained at Wakefield prison in West Yorkshire and although his minimum prison term expired more than 15 years ago the Parole Board has not yet approved his released.

McGeoch, from Glasgow, is serving his life sentence at Dumfries prison for murdering a man in Inverness in 1998. His minimum term has also expired but he committed further offences - including violently escaping custody in 2008 - which mean he will not be eligible for parole until 2015 at the earliest.

Baroness Hale said: “I have no sympathy at all for either of these appellants. I cannot envisage any law which the United Kingdom might eventually pass on this subject which would grant either of them the right to vote.”

In his section of the ruling, Lord Sumption was critical of the way the Strasbourg court had reached its earlier decision that a blanket ban was a breach of human rights.

The judge described it as a “very curious position”and said the European judges did not appear to have analysed British sentencing principles before making their decision.

Mr Cameron has vowed that inmates will not be given voting rights under his administration and has said that the idea of giving prisoners the vote makes him “physically sick”.

He told the House of Commons last year: “No-one should be in any doubt: prisoners are not getting the vote under this Government.”

In the wake of the ruling he tweeted: “The Supreme Court judgment on prisoner voting is a great victory for common sense.”